About your Search

20121002
20121002
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
at each other. there was press attention in the mccain campaign and-john mccain was being. we did a survey and 60% or less of the more negative. we said the obama people were more negative than mccain. he had so much money he to run negative ads as well as the positive ads. the candidates worried that they will be seen as too negative. they have a reputational risk at stake and there as. the super pak ads do not have the same risk. they and 99.9%-. negative. after the election, that is something i think we need to think about as an effect of this new kind -- campaign finance world is that the message the american people are getting -- >> another interest against anonymity -- it seems relatively small in comparison with the other issues. if you'll let one person to anonymously sully the debate in a significant way, there is a cost. >> if there is a widespread perception mitt romney does not have influence over what the super back contained, he will be expected to stand up and defend it. >> mitt romney said he did not see those ads. goshm, gewe - there are clear cases where candidates have c
't cause autism. hillary clinton said the same thing and so did john mccain. all three made the connection between thimerosol with a trace of mercury in it. that's been debunked. >> again, you're talking about dabbling in some theories, and completely grant you that it's troubling when you talk about people on the left that pushed this idea of a vaccine/autism link. that's troubling and needs to be called out. when you talk about as a party, mitt romney's in his acceptance speech at republican convention mocked the idea of combating climate change. he talked about obama promising to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. he mocked it, and it was a huge applause line. you have a republican party platform using scare quotes to talk about climate change. you have republicans in major positions of influence in the congress saying it's a complete hoax. that's totally out of whack with the kind of hostility of science you see overall on the left. >> so my response to that would be that, see, you're focusing more on the republican party and the democratic party, and that's not the point
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)